Albert's response to the challenge has raised eyebrows, particularly among those closely following the case. His letter to Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group requested additional citations to support Prince's arguments against the ordinance. This request has sparked criticism, suggesting that Albert may have overlooked the detailed legal precedents already provided in Prince's initial communication.
The original letter from Prince, dated August 14, included comprehensive legal citations, far beyond just the Dillon v. Erie case. The request for further clarification has led to questions about Albert's understanding of the issue at hand.
Barrett Township’s decision to hire Albert, despite his firm’s focus on family law and estate planning rather than firearms law, indicates their commitment to defending the proposed ordinance. However, this latest development suggests that Albert may need to revisit the original correspondence to fully grasp the legal challenges posed.
Stay tuned to BarrettCommunity.com for further updates on this ongoing legal matter.
